I can think of no other reason than narcissism for Obama’s clumsy attempts to bring about a Palestinian state by publicly getting out in front of the Palestinians on important issues that should be decided through negotiations.

President Obama’s much publicized speech (May 19, 2011) to the Arab world created a new dimension in presidential character — the passive narcissist. Seldom, if ever, has any president been so infatuated with his own words at the expense of reality

With the American dollar on a downward spiral, the president now promises billions of dollars to the so called “Arab democracy movement.” Calling something a “democracy movement” doesn’t make it so. Straining the financial resources of the nation for the chimera of democracy does not enhance our national security.

In Libya, the democracy movement is run by Gitmo alumni tied to a region known for sending volunteers to fight American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Egypt, the democracy movement seems to be the spearhead for the ascending Muslim Brotherhood. “We are all Egyptians,” Nicholas Kristof tells us in the pages of the New York Times, foreshadowing the tone of Obama’s speech. But ask the Coptic Christians if the Salafi-led attacks on them make them feel like Egyptians.

In Bahrain and Yemen, the street protests are heavily infiltrated by Iranian interests in the furtherance of Iran’s hegemonic view of a Shi’ia crescent. If Iranian vassals come to power, it will not advance American interests in those countries. Bahrain under an Iranian-influenced government is not going to permit the headquartering of the Fifth Fleet, as does the current regime. Yemen will not be a refueling port for the American Navy.

The Democrats have posed the question: When have you ever seen the opposition party align itself with a foreign leader, Benjamin Netanhyau, against a sitting American president? The answer is, perhaps, founded in a corollary question. When have you ever seen the president of the United States run headlong to embrace a movement that is antithetical to our strategic interests and looks strikingly like a replay of Iranian fundamentalists running amuck in the streets of Tehran demonstrating against the shah?

The Arab Spring is a lie. It is a lie promulgated by a wishful media, a naive and puerile president, and a gaggle of academics incapable of thinking beyond two categories: dictators and democrats. But there is a third category that hangs over Obama’s characterization of events, which is conspicuous by its absence in his speech — the theocratic ascendance, the Salafis, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Shi’ia theocrats in the Persian Gulf.

Obama is our first Muslim president, in the same sense that Bill Clinton was our first black president. Obama needs to be out front in terms of what he naively sees as the Arab democratic revolution. He also wants to be the American president who created the Palestinian state. His narcissism drives his rhetoric. Obama wants to be the godfather of the Arab Spring and the midwife of the Palestinian birth.

I can think of no other reason than narcissism for Obama’s clumsy attempts to bring about a Palestinian state by publicly getting out in front of the Palestinians on important issues that should be decided through negotiations. Obama, not Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, made the construction freeze in Jerusalem a precondition for negotiations. Even Yasser Arafat negotiated while neighborhoods were constructed in Jerusalem, neighborhoods the Palestinians never thought of claiming until Obama paved the way. Similarly, rolling Israel back to the pre-1967 “borders,” which are, in fact, military armistice lines, would be difficult to reconstruct 63 years later and constrain the negotiations because Abbas cannot afford to be less demanding of the Israelis than is the American president.

Obama takes negotiations to the public stage, asking Israel to dig out the old military maps, withdraw to the Auschwitz armistice lines, and agree to yield land as a pre-condition for negotiations with a new Palestinian entity dominated by Hamas, which advocates Israel’s destruction and which publicly mourned the death of Osama bin Laden.

But throwing Israel under the bus soon proved a political liability. The next day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a joint press conference, was scolding Obama over taking a position that every other administration had seen as the conceivable end of negotiations between the parties, not a starting point sculpted in granite by the American president. Obama had embraced the Palestinian position without asking anything from them.

The president quickly realized he had blundered. Speaking two days later to the annual meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the president tried to reaffirm his support of Israel and showed that his ability to zigzag was not reserved to the basketball court. No, he does not expect Israel to withdraw to the 67 “boundaries,” a statement that should have dismayed anyone who heard Thursday’s speech. And he did not expect Israel to negotiate with Hamas, a statement that should have raised eyebrows.

Absent from the president’s attempt to smooth things over with the Jewish community was the statement he had made at the 2008 AIPAC meeting about the indivisibility of Jerusalem. This prompted veteran foreign affairs expert Elliot Abrams to observe that the Obama State Department seemed not to know what country the Israeli Knesset or the Western Wall of the temple was in, since they refer to diplomatic visits to Israel and Jerusalem, as if Jerusalem were something else.

Commenting on Obama’s naiveté, Israeli MP Danny Danon noted, “Israel will not pay [Obama’s] private tuition as he tries to understand the essence of the conflict.”

Of course, the conflict between Arabs and Israelis is not about lines on a map and the status of Jerusalem. It is about the existence of a Jewish entity in the middle of land Muslims consider sacred. Arab violence in the form of pogroms, rape, arson, and murder existed long before the Jewish state, let alone the settlements. Israel left Gaza. It was a major test case of yielding land for peace that resulted in yielding land for death in the form of rockets, missiles, and mortars.

Obama took office and quickly betrayed the Czechoslovaks and the Poles. He is a man who feels guilty about the pursuit of American national interests, who acts as if the dismal state of the Arab and Islamic world is our fault and not theirs. He cannot tell friend from foe. His betrayal of Israel is first and foremost a betrayal of America, a refusal to adhere to George W. Bush’s agreements on Jerusalem in exchange for the Gaza withdrawal. What confidence can nations have now in the continuity of American policy?

Our concern should not be for Israel but for ourselves. We have elected a narcissist, naive and incapable, mesmerized by his own words echoing from the teleprompter, who is squandering our strategic interests in the Middle East with the same abandon that he squandered our strategic interests in Eastern Europe.

Abraham H. Miller is an emeritus professor of political science and a former head of the Intelligence Studies Section of the International Studies Association.

Obama has been a polarising force for Israeli Jews in a positive sense. Today despite political grandstanding by Israeli politicians from the centre and left of centre, most Israeli Jews now understand that the US under Obama cannot be taken at its word, Israelis know that when push comes to shove we stand or fall as a Jewish state by ourselves and for ourselves. In a sense Obaama has done Jewish Israel a service. By being a catalyst for so much of the anti Israel/Jew sentiment being expressed around the west today, Obama has helped reshape the Jews self perception and has smoked out the modern antisemitism of the Political and intellectual west eager to jump on the Obama insp-ired band wagon. Israeli Jews now Know who and what they are up against.

Yes!! But the really interesting part is what this will do to American Jews. They have been running away from facing these issues for decades because they are scared. We have created a risk-averse society, and American Jews want to take a stand with Israel, but they desperately want to be liked and accepted first and foremost. Netanyahu has presented them with an alternate Jewish identity. He took a stand and took it in the oval office. In so doing, he through down the gauntlet to American Jews. Are you going to take a stand or aren’t you?

The peace process and the peace treaties that Israel has are interconnect. It was not the military that prevent a large Arab/Israel war it was the hope of a Palestinian state and negotiations. There will be another war as the conditions are the same, this time Hizbullah and Iran will join. Oil prices will go through the roof and the US economy will collapse like the USSR. Oh well I guess these thing happen as long as Bibi is happy.

Ask the Fed what high oil prices will do to the US economy during the next 4 years.

Bibi Netanyahu’s happiness is not what any of this is about. It is the intentional destruction of the State of Israel, a sovereign nation that is an ally, and another holocaust of the Jewish people that is planned by the Muslims. That is a fact that can no longer be hidden, or ignored.

As for oil and the economy. Perhaps Obama should have allowed drilling in the US, and not done everything in his power to stop it. And perhaps he should not be bailing out large corporations, increasing government, and now offering to subsidize the “arab Spring” with our tax dollars.

Don’t blame Israel on this one……Israel has every right to try to survive, and on their own native land. The archeology cannot be argued with. Netanyahu is only trying to make sure they do.

The Arab spring has unmasked the brutal reality of the Middle East. While each and every would-be leader it the region talks about the “plight” of the so-called Palestinians, what they really mean is that the Palestinians are pawns whose only role is as a battering ram to be used in support of the pursuit of regional hegemony. While it is true that pure hatred of the Jews is a factor, the opposition to a Jewish state stems from its being a roadblock to attaining hegemony.

So what drives the progressive/Paulist support for the Palestinian cause in the West? Clearly, it is pure anti-Semitism. Matt et al doesn’t give a damn about the Palestinians. They are just a means for committing a second holocaust while allowing them to posture in moral superiority.

And what will they say when the Muslim Brotherhood massacres the Copts in Egypt?

It’s malevolent narcissism. And the real problem is that half the country is so blind they will never see it; and among the other half that see problems with Obama – the majority of them probably think he’s a garden variety Democrat. Of the few that suspect the truth, fewer still are willing to call it what it is. Our only hope is, tragically, to have to wish for a continuing poor economy. That, and a decent enough Republican candidate, is our only hope.

I agree completely. I’m astounded every day at the inability of people to see exactly what he truly is. I live in the South and I believe that even when people acknowledge that he has serious character flaws, they are afraid to verbalize it because of the fear that they’ll be labeled as “racists”. Very depressing to see things unfold as they have. Not much hope for the GOP to produce a candidate that can compete against this narcissist.

You say clearly exactly the way it is. BHO is/ has always been in re-election mode and lefty MSM is helping him. And for those Dems angry that Repubs agreed with Bibi against BHO, well they clapped heartily when Mexican president in front of Congress criticized Arizona citizens. BHO has an agenda and it’s opposite of USA interests.

“In Libya, the democracy movement is run by Gitmo alumni tied to a region known for sending volunteers to fight American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Egypt, the democracy movement seems to be the spearhead for the ascending Muslim Brotherhood. “We are all Egyptians,” Nicholas Kristof tells us in the pages of the New York Times, foreshadowing the tone of Obama’s speech. But ask the Coptic Christians if the Salafi-led attacks on them make them feel like Egyptians.”

Obama reminds me of a little kid. The child thinks that if he believes in something hard enough, it will become so. The child never takes into consideration the realities that are around him, simply that he “wants” something and that it will happen. Just shows you what a naive little boy Obama is. He totally disregards the realities on the ground in the Middle East because he wants his Jimmy Carter view of the world to become so. Forget the fact that the people who are going to take over these Middle Eastern governments are worse than the people they are replacing. As long as you stick a “Democracy” label on it, ESPECIALLY if it’s in a Muslim nation, Obama will be your pal. This child we have in the White House really needs a dose of reality when it comes to the outside world. But I thought that’s why we had a Secretary of State, to clue him in on stuff like this. Oh sorry, Hillary is there. Just shows you what you get when you put political hacks in important positions that should be held by experienced diplomats.

I suspect we have a hybrid in the Whitehouse and I’m not referring to his racial composition. We have a narcissist that also happens to be a Marxist in his heart – a devious and cunning man who hates his country and its allies and seeks to radically reform it – mostly in Act II.

He is also smart enough to know that half of America agrees with him and doesn’t mind his destroying “Old America” at all.

I have no doubt that Obama is a narcissist still I would submit that it is and must be more than Obama. It is his handlers and administration in general that make it possible. It is doubtful in my mind that this incompetent novice marxist president sat down in the oval office and thought this strategy up ‘all by himself’. He simply does not have the knowledge about any given subject to do so.

Just an observation, but there must be a gaggle of staff fawning over his ego and pushing their agenda’s knowing that the suave Man in the Mirror will surely bite at anything that will take him to perceived new heights of acclaim and who without a twit of knowledge of history, culture or geography runs along with whatever his leftist support group put on the monitor.

This works with edicts from the WH and from his Czars in the field in their never ending battle to bring America to her knees. He is a narcissist, but not alone in the formulation of HIS policy.

When his policy fails or is ridiculed his handlers step in again to assuage his ego and move on to the next topic. NEXT,,,,, faith an woultnya know thar the lad is in Eire.

He’s anything but incompetent. That’s the camoflage -the “oops I really didn’t know”…death panels?…how did that get in there?

He’s devious, cunning and arrogant and cold-hearted enough to demand fully born babies get slaughtered.Wrap that up in a “aw shucks” good ole boy type of Chicago Street organizer and you get smiles while he gets exactly what he was put in there for-take down Old America and all that love it.

Touche. I think we feel the same way about this guy. We may be mincing words. Only saying that in my world a bright “devious, cunning and arrogant and cold-hearted” president of the U.S. who knows little to nothing about business, hitory, cultures, common courtesy to our friends abroad, or how his citizens actually live, etc. ad infinitum, is not to competent for the position he has as the leader of the free world or what he will leave of that world.

At first, I thought he was just too stupid to know what the outcome of his policies would be. It didn’t take long for me to see that he is getting the outcome he wants. I wish I could put these liberals into a virtual reality moment and let them see the country after they get their way. They would have to live in the society they created. As for democracy in the Arab world, they made fun of Bush for trying it in Iraq.

Obama is our first Muslim president, in the same sense that Bill Clinton was our first black president. Obama needs to be out front in terms of what he naively sees as the Arab democratic revolution. He also wants to be the American president who created the Palestinian state. His narcissism drives his rhetoric. Obama wants to be the godfather of the Arab Spring and the midwife of the Palestinian birth.

I don’t even think Obama’s thinking that deep when it comes to the Arab-Israeli situation. I agree completely that he’s a narcissist, but so focused on himself that, in terms of world importance, the clashes between the Israelis and Hamas and Hezbollah don’t really register on his radar, in large part because the U.S. position on Israel until now has been consistent enough through Democratic and Republican administrations that there was really no way to make it into an Obama-vs.-evil George W. Bush meme, as he did when it came to Iraq and the broader War on Terror.

Obama sees dealing with the Israelis and the Palestinians about like a dental tooth cleaning — an irritation and something he’d rather not do, except he’s being nagged into it. And at the same time he’s got a bunch of liberal advisors on his foreign policy team who do care about the situation, and are strongly on the Palestinian side when it comes to pressuring Israel on concessions. So they tell Obama what to do, he doesn’t really give a damn about the situation because he doesn’t see it as affecting him direction and then goes along with their ideas. Then he’s shocked and angered when he gets blowback on the thing (Obama was still in full backpeddle mode during this morning’s joint press conference in London, and it had to annoy the hell out of him that he’s on this big European PR trip and people aren’t focusing on that, but are still trying to pin him down on getting schooled by Bibi last week).

It is legitimate criticism to say that Obama should not have said what he said because it is likely to harden the Palestinian negotiating position. What is NOT legitimate, and what I don’t understand, is how can people who consider themselves fairminded keep repeating the lie that Obama called for a return to the 1967 borders? Do you believe if the lie is repeated enough it becomes true? Here is what he said:

“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

The 1949 cease fire lines are not the correct basis from the Israeli point of view. The implication is that everything before the ’67 war is legitimatly Israel and everything after is not. That includes the Golan heights, East Jerusalem including the old city, and holy sites and all of the major settlement blocs.

That position is invalid from both the Israeli and Palestinian persective. For Israelis current demographics and security are the basis for proposed borders. From the Palestinian perspective none of Israel is legitimate and any part of it is already a concession.

The real question is why is anybody even talking about negotiations and peace process at this point? Since the last round and even more so since the deal with Hamas the Palestinians have very clearly stated that they have no interest in negotiations at all. This is all theatrics.

The only advantage I can see to talking about it as if it were real is to keep up pressure on Hamas. Do not be fooled by what they have said to the western press. In arabic they are clear as a bell that they will never negotiate or recognize Israel.

As much as the press here focuses on a rift between Obama and Bibi that is nothing and is overblown. The Palestinians however, both Fatah and Hamas are furious with him but that never gets reported.

“The implication is that everything before the ’67 war is legitimatly Israel and everything after is not. That includes the Golan heights, East Jerusalem including the old city, and holy sites and all of the major settlement blocs.”

The implication, and the reality is, that the 1967 lines are the STARTING point for negotiations. This is in keeping with UN resolution 242, which as I’m sure you know, calls for Israeli pullout from territories captured in 1967, not ALL the territories. What else would the starting point be?

I also fail to see how the 1967 borders in and of themselves are indedensible. These are the same borders that Israel had when it succeeded in SIX DAYS in repulsing an attack by Egypt, Syria and Jordan, states armed with weaponry from the now-defunct USSR. If the borders were eminently defensible in 1967, why would they be less defensible today or in the future?

The Israelis won in ’67 because of a suprise attack on its largest adversary, Egypt, destroying its air force. The main forces against Israel came from north and south. Jordan was positioned at the Israeli ‘neck’ which was only about 9 miles wide. They entered the war late and reluctantly, They did not mass their troops to push west and divide Israel which they could easily have done.

The fighting that did occur against the Jordanians was fierce. They fought very well and probably had the most professional arab military. They fought mostly a defensive war and were eventually beaten back at great cost.

Remember the iconic photo of the paratrooper at the western wall in 1967? Giving that up is what we are talking about and that is not going to happen while any Israeli still stands.

The reason there is peace with Jordan now is that King Abdulla was always sort of pro-Israel and never wanted war. That is not the case for his population. Now think about the ‘arab spring’ Permanent peace with Jordon or Egypt can not be counted on and a coordinated attack against Israel in the not so distant future, with a well armed Hizbolla in the mix is a very real possibility.

In reality all proposed maps put out by Israel look like ’67 with some changes. But the difference we are talking about is not mere semantics. It represents a fundamental approach. One mistake many politicians who have crashed upon these rocks have made is looking at this as a simple technical matter while ignoring the fundamental differences between the two sides. These are not some distant powers where someone draws lines on a map and that is it. These are neighbors with a bloody feud going on for a century and it is more complicated than that.

242 is never mentioned by the Palestinians because it does not give them a leg to stand on.

According to 242 Israel has fufilled its obligations concerning the West Bank and Gaza. The only disputed territory left is the Golan and that conflict is with Syria.

Remember 242 never mentions or envisions a Palestinian state. It calls for Israel to withdraw from territories captured from Jordan and Egypt and to conclude a peace. They did that and achieved mutually agreed borders. Jordon chose to abandon its West Bank territory and Egypt Gaza to an undetermined status.

A Palestinian State, if they declare one unilaterally, has no defined legal borders unless they can achieve a treaty with Israel, Jordon, and Egypt. Borders can only be established by treaty. Israel is within its rights to annex those territories. Nobody will recognize that but then when it comes to Israel the rules always change.

But you overlook the startling and astonishing fact that Obama made no mention of a letter signed by George W. Bush and endorsed by Congress stating that Jerusalem was to remain undivided and part of Israel.

That wasn’t some private promise by an old president that a new president can choose to disregard; it was an undertaking backed by the US government, meant to compensate the Israelis for the risk they took in withdrawing from Gaza (dismantling settlements, moving their population, etc.).

That surely doesn’t fall under the heading of “some swaps,” but was clearly a taking of Jerusalem off the table, in advance of negotiations.

“But you overlook the startling and astonishing fact that Obama made no mention of a letter signed by George W. Bush and endorsed by Congress stating that Jerusalem was to remain undivided and part of Israel.”

No such letter exists, and Congress has never passed an undivided Jerusalem resolution.

Mark O. you really do live in dreamland – or you are a paid blogger. This letter not only exists, it is referred to within the text of the “Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 passed by Congress:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress makes the following findings:

(1)Each sovereign nation, under international law and custom, may designate its own capital.

(2)Since 1950, the city of Jerusalem has been the capital of the State of Israel.

(3)The city of Jerusalem is the seat of Israel’s President, Parliament, and Supreme Court, and the site of numerous government ministries and social and cultural institutions.

(4)The city of Jerusalem is the spiritual center of Judaism, and is also considered a holy city by the members of other religious faiths.

(5)From 1948-1967, Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens of all faiths as well as Jewish citizens of all states were denied access to holy sites in the area controlled by Jordan.

(6)In 1967, the city of Jerusalem was reunited during the conflict known as the Six Day War.

(7)Since 1967, Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel,and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy sites within the city.

(8)This year marks the 28th consecutive year that Jerusalem has been administered as a unified city in which the rights of all faiths have been respected and protected.

(9)In 1990, the Congress unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 106, which declares that the Congress “strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected”.

(10)In 1992, the United States Senate and House of Representatives unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113 of the One Hundred Second Congress to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem, and reaffirming congressional sentiment that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city.

…
Go argue with the U.S. congress. Your argument is a non-starter here.

Mark O. Yes, such a letter does exist and its existence has not been disputed by Bush. It was the basis for Israel’s great risk and consummate failure in leaving Gaza. The letter was one of the tools Sharon used to quell the Israeli public’s anxiety about the forcible expulsion of Israelis from Gaza and the ensuing strategic risks. On the matter of what Obama said, you fail miserably to grasp the significance of this change in administration stance. All prior administrations saw the 67 armistice lines, they are not borders, to be possible END products of negotiations between the PARTIES, not ukases to be promulgated by some self-proclaimed Czar, like Obama. He has now preempted the negotiations by embracing the Palestinian position publicly. Months ago, Hillary Clinton reiterated the standard position that boundaries were to be END products determined by the PARTIES themselves. Obama caused a major change in this position. Obama did it consciously and conspicuously. He resisted every plea by the Israelis to keep him from doing this. You Mark O ignore the nuances so vital to diplomacy and react in the most superficial and unsophisticated way to the material before your eyes. Understanding what Obama did, why it is such an issue, requires an understanding of what prior administrations have done and what they have said. This is palpably different, and most commentators–even those unfriendly to Israel–got it. You regrettably didn’t.

This situation is still winnable, provided this President is willing to take some help from the loyal opposition. Sen. Lindsey Graham wants to confront the Elephant in the Room, namely Hamas and its filthy covenant.

He has suggested that Hamas, which is now part of the Palestinian government, be required to amend its charter, or forfeit US aid.

“This new condition on American aid is imperative in light of the coalition government formed between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel and our country views them as a terrorist organization. A coalition between the Palestinian Authority and an unreformed, unrepentant Hamas makes a comprehensive peace deal with Israel virtually impossible.”

It is time for us to have a discussion about the morality of giving people with that kind of charter money.

The application of the word “narcissist” is completely justified. How else do you explain Obama’s near total absorbtion into his own narrative. Believing that he had forged a new Middle East policy, he was immersed in the wonder of it all until Netanyahu’s visit jolted him out of his reverie.

Abe Miller is becoming a pillar of pajamasmedia and is one of the main reasons why I visit the site.

I just don’t get why anybody considers little lenin to be naive. The naive people are the ones who think Spike is naive. And his psychotic narcissism has nothing to do with his desire to wipe Israel off the map.

He’s doing exactly what he set out to do. Destroying Israel is CLEARLY a major goal. From day 1. Hes’s a lifelong virulent anti-semite. Everything he has done or said advancess his goal to destroy Israel. It’s as plain as the nose on your face.

I am truly astonished.
This administration has worked for years to weaken America, and Israel, in every possible way. And still, people are talking about “narcissism”.

Our Country has not met a real and dangerous domestic subversion for a long time, we seem to be unable even to think that the forces of subversion are real.

Narcissism ?
This administration is on the other side, that’s all.
They side with the palestinians against Israel, with the State against Freedom, with chavez and the mad mullahs against America and Israel, with the muslim brotherhood against Peace, and the list could go on and on. And on.

Come to terms with that, because we need to be able to explain to everyone why we must vote the subversives out of power, and we need to win like we need to breath.

Poverty, war, and totalitarianism are the horizon of work of the forces of chaos and subversion.

* The festering anti-semitism of the Left.
* Obama’s Muslim upbringing.
* Years of listening to Wright’s hate filled “sermons”.
* General love of leftist dictators and hate of Republics and rule-of-law.

Dances With Words is not a “Muslim” President, he is a Marxist President.

You could put down the Fred Astaire footsteps by following the leftist dance moves and not miss a beat.

Look at what the Daily Duranty has been writing for years. Look at what Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger and Rashid Khalidi and the New Party and George Soros want, stand for…would like to see happen.

The radical left despises America and Israel. They now control two of our legislative branches of government. A brief moment ago, they had all three. And Obama’s “slow cooking” of this country infuriated many of them, they wanted to drive a stake through our heart while they had the chance. The “shellacking” was “the lost moment” to them.

But, do not believe for one moment that “slow cooking” means the grill has been turned off.

The Constitution is a mere suggestion, not a binding covenant with we the people. It is to be ignored when it presents an inconvenience. The appointment of “czars” and “czarinas” ….each of whom is more radically leftist than the next, is the Politburo on the Potomac.

Leftist Democrats ask when did an opposing party ever side with a foreign government over a sitting President. You may want to ask John Kerry if he met with a foreign government, or Ted Kennedy or Jimmy Carter…in DIRECT opposition to this country’s stance.

You may want to ask the Daily Duranty if they have spied for a foreign government or given away state secrets.

Wait, you say….the Daily Duranty is not a political party…they are an independent media outlet.

In a pig’s eye. They are an arm of the far leftist wing of the Democratic Party, act as operatives and shills and put out nothing but propaganda and coverups for the Party.

Dances With Words has the exact same allies and the exact same “enemies” as does every radical leftist. He has tried to push Israel around regarding settlements in THEIR CAPITAL, has for years been vehemently anti-Likud, pushed the Israeli’s into a corner on the pre-1967 boundaries and has been overtly soft on Hamas.

Leftists want to be the world’s cop. What we eat, what we smoke, what we drive, how much success is “enough”, they want to grab everything in their grubby little hands and parcel it out at their whim. America and Israel are too much the “winners” and they want to identify all the losers that they can and “redistribute” the world’s assets.

What American and Israeli Jews must confront in an open adult conversation is whether blindly adhering to the peer pressure of being “liberal” will force them to commit suicide by world cop.

And, they are going to have finally…finally…come to grips with the reality that the leftists are NOT “liberal”. In any sense of the word.

Well said cfbleachers, I would just add the sheeple better wake up. I just don’t understand how his polls can be anywhere close to what is published. 50 percent of out population can’t be that blind. Wake up people!

Abraham miller and others supporting the Jewish state ground their arguments in merit, honest history and fair play. The fail entirely to understand the hermeneutics of Middle East diplomacy.

The State Department which closed the American door in the face of refugees fleeing certain death in Hitler’s Europe, opposed the foundation of the Jewish State in 1948. They have been trying to put the Genie back in the bottle ever since. American diplomats like Richard Murphy have devoted their entire lives and careers to poisonous hatred of Zion.

The Arabist State department has been waiting a long time for Barack Obama. Cyrus Vance recalls Jimmy Carter’s plan to screw Israel in his second term. Jews narrowly missed that bullet. Every indication suggests that if he gets a second term, Obama will do the damage to the Jewish State that and its relations with the US that Peacemaker Carter intended.

Abe, you are too kind. Yes, Obama is a narcissist; but that isn’t the reason why he’s attacking Israel. It’s because he’s anti-Semitic and always has been. And nothing brings out one’s bigotry worse than being in a desperate situation – which is what Obama is. His Party got hammered in the last election, his polls are in the toilet and he’s facing defeat in 2012. He therefore has to shore up the loyalties of his true believers – Marxists, Muslims and minorities. Since those three are shot through with anti-Semitism, he has to appeal to that to get their votes; which he just did with his attack on Israel.

Narcissism doesn’t create a self, it merely flatters that self once it’s been formed. Obama created his own anti-Semitism within himself; now, for the sake of a narcissistic need to be re-elected, he’s letting that bigotry loose.

Oh, yes. They can be, and they are that blind. The problem is that this leftist point of view has crept up on us slowly. Without noticing it, beginning from the sixties, the talk show hosts on television, the movies bing produced, as well as the newspapers, together with the majority of the professors of our colleges, all taught the unvary public the “correct” point of view. So much so, that after being brainwashed for so many years, a majority of the public thinks that this is the truth. In our democracy these people were given free rein to turn our youth into unthinking robots. It is only recently that the conservative point of view has been espoused by intelligent people. They have a difficult road to hoe. Let’s hope it is not too late.

The timing of the 19 May speech is curious to me…coming about 2 weeks after Obama ordered the hit on UBL. Me thinks (in addition to being to being fundamentally anti-semetic) that Obama is trying to reestablish his bonifides with the Muslim Brotherhood by attacking Israel. That always distracts from the fact that you killed Islam’s hero.

Of course, the conflict between Arabs and Israelis is not about lines on a map and the status of Jerusalem. It is about the existence of a Jewish entity in the middle of land Muslims consider sacred.

Exactly. And there will be no peace in the Middle East so long as the Jewish state of Israel exists. The best we can hope for is the absence of war. We should stop pretending we can “negotiate” our way to a lasting peace. In the course of human events, true lasting peace has come at the price of bloody conflicts that end with one side beaten to submission if not unconditional surrender. Israel must never sell its birthright for the promise of an unsustainable peace.

This conflict is thousands of years old and is described in the Bible. Obama’s complaint about “impatience” is absurd in this historical context. The history of this sliver of land is that the strongest holds it. Pray that Israel is eternally strong and brave.

I’m starting to think Obama isn’t just a narcissistic putz but also a sociopath.He’s done nothing positive for the country and his 1967 border comment is nothing short of democide (democrat suicide) for Israel.Now he attempts to back peddle on his statement but the damage is done.If he was using the statement to placate the muslims that bristled over the killing of OBL he is foolish.Muslims feed on violence and anger.
Obama seems naive to Middle East dealings but that feels ingenuous and illogical,who would understand Islamic motives better than he should.Is it possible he lacks knowledge of Middle East history?
One thing all non-muslims need to do is to stop acknowledging the fallacy of Jerusalem being a sacred place for muslims.There is no religious or historical basis to their claim.That or Jews should make a claim to receive the right to worship in Mecca and Medina since Jews lived and worshiped there long before Muhammad came and slaughtered them there.Maybe it would boost the Jewish bargaining power.
Just like the right to return debate.If Palestinians have that right,why can’t Jews return to their homes and businesses confiscated during the multiple pogroms,evictions,slaughters and persecutions?
Why is this debate always unbalanced and demonstrative of muslim favoritism ?
Am i not understanding something ?

“Narcissism”, huh? Nice dime store psychology there. Its clear you are prejudiced against Muslims and Islam, and even a bigot. You seem to think that all ME protests are part of some master cabal by great Muslim overlord, and anyone who does anything to support anything in the ME other than Israel’s expansionist agenda is in league with the Taliban. Shame on Pajamas Media for giving you platform for your hate speech.

There are lots of people who are bigots, and a large percentage of them are Muslims. It surprises me that you would even use the term when it is evident that Islam has bred bigotry in the extreme. My conclusion is that you think that we in the West are so sensitive to that term that we will run and hide for fear of being ‘racists’ or politically incorrect. That theory is daily being proven wrong, not just in these comment sections, but also by many pundits who have learned how this tactic is being used in an attempt to cower them and silence legitimate discussion.

You speak of “Israel’s expansionist agenda” as if it is a fact. Israel does not have an expansionist agenda. In self-defense, Israel has taken lands by conquest from their enemies, which is entirely legitimate when being attacked. They have also ceded some of those territories back in efforts to promote peace with those enemies and have gotten only rockets and bombs on their citizenry in return. That doesn’t look like expansionism to me. In the future, they should defend themselves with great force and little compassion as their enemies are without honor in peace negotiations and, instead, teach their children hatred and the promotion of war upon innocent victims.

“…the one key fact of Obama that most people can’t seem to get their heads around, or refuse to consider as “conspiratorial”, “unbelievable”, “impossible”: that Obama’s intentions are not the random result of ignorance or incompetence, but have the deliberate, conscious and purposeful goal of destruction.

“Why?

“I’ve spoken about it more than a few times on this blog. (See especially “Good Night, America”, but as a sampling of others, “Obama’s End Game”, “Obama’s Communist Past”, “Yet ANOTHER commie in Comrade Barack’s closet”, and for some real insight into who he could be working for, “How to Brainwash a Nation” and “KGB Today”.)

“In the case of Israel, his objective is the destruction of Israel, pure and simple. In the case of the United States, whether by profligate spending to bankrupt us, evisceration of our nuclear arsenal to make us defenseless (coming soon, evisceration of our conventional arsenal, too), or a healthcare law that is the germ of a future totalitarianism to enslave us, his goal is the literal destruction of the United States.”

Obama was essentially created by george soros and his new world order cohorts. Obama is a puppet. Israel is expendible to them, as it keeps the primative muslims stired up. A muslim brotherhood dominated middle east is their goal as they believe backward muslims are easily controled.

It is not narcissism, but hatred of Israel and Jews that is endemic throughout the Middle East and especially among the so-called “Palestinians”

Obama was groomed from birth to be put on the political fast-track to President by anti-Jewish, pro-Palestinian activists. Everywhere you look in Obama’s real biography, the common denominator are Muslims and Palestinians seeking to create a Jew-free Palestine.

“Arab Palestine” is a myth. There has never been a nation or state known as Palestine in history – it has always been the Land of Israel and Jews have lived there continuously for 3,300 years.

It was the Emperor Hadrian who changed its name from Israel to Syria-Palestina. Syrians has always considered “Palestine” to be the Southern part of Syria.

The “Palestinian Nationalist Movement” began in the 1920′s with Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Hitler’s ally in the Middle East and architect of the Holocaust – long before the establishment of Israel. It was al-Husseini who orchestrated the massacre of Jews in Hebron in 1929, among many others.

Like all other Pan-Arab movements, this had nothing whatsoever to do with returning land to any separately identifiable people known as “Palestinians” – who are no different than any other Arabs of the region. Up until 1948, “Palestinians” only referred to Jews.

The UN Partition Plan of Mandated Palestine of 1947 (UNSC 181) called for the creation of a Jewish state and an ARAB State. There is no mention of creating a Palestinian state. There already was an Independent Palestinian State in 1922. It was called TRANSJORDAN that became simply Jordan – 70% of which consists of the same Palestinian Arabs who claim Israel belongs to them.

Jordan included 80% of the land intended to be a Jewish Homeland that the British split off and gave to the Hashemite King of Jordan.

The Big Lie that “Palestine” was always 100% Arab from time immemorial actually began with King Saud in reaction to the UN’s partition plan. For nearly a year before declaring Israeli independence, terrorist attacks against Jews were taking place throughout Mandated Palestine, directly aided by the British who set loose thousands of Arab terrorists from their jails giving them arms to fight against the Jews.

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn are members of the Free Gaza Movement and helped organized the Gaza Flotilla/Terrorist Ship that went on a martyr mission to lynch Jews. Ayers/Dohrn are also members of the large, International Solidarity Movement(ISM) – a threat not only to Israel, but also America (http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/kaplan_%20rpt.pdf).

The people who have been covering up Obama’s true origins and motivations are all tied into one or more front groups for the Palestinian and Muslim Brotherhood jihadist organizations.

Obama’s prime directive is to destroy Israel politically, if not militarily.